Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.

The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.

In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.

The statement, leaked to The Times, is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.Background

It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church.

The 36 primates at the gathering will be aware that the Pope, while still a cardinal, sent a message of support to the orthodox wing of the Episcopal Church of the US as it struggled to cope with the fallout after the ordination of the gay bishop Gene Robinson.

Were this weekÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s discussions to lead to a split between liberals and conservatives, many of the former objections in Rome to a reunion with Anglican conservatives would disappear. Many of those Anglicans who object most strongly to gay ordination also oppose the ordination of women priests.

Rome has already shown itself willing to be flexible on the subject of celibacy when it received dozens of married priests from the Church of England into the Catholic priesthood after they left over the issue of womenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ordination.

There are about 78 million Anglicans, compared with a billion Roman Catholics, worldwide. In England and Wales, the Catholic Church is set to overtake Anglicanism as the predominant Christian denomination for the first time since the Reformation, thanks to immigration from Catholic countries.

As the AnglicansÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ squabbles over the fundamentals of Christian doctrine continue Ã¢â‚¬â€ with seven of the conservative primates twice refusing to share Communion with the other Anglican leaders at their meeting in Tanzania Ã¢â‚¬â€ the ChurchÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s credibility is being increasingly undermined in a world that is looking for strong witness from its international religious leaders.

The Anglicans will attempt to resolve their differences today by publishing a new Anglican Covenant, an attempt to provide a doctrinal statement under which they can unite.

But many fear that the divisions have gone too far to be bridged and that, if they cannot even share Communion with each other, there is little hope that they will agree on a statement of common doctrine.

The latest Anglican-Catholic report could hardly come at a more sensitive time. It has been drawn up by the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, which is chaired by the Right Rev David Beetge, an Anglican bishop from South Africa, and the Most Rev John Bathersby, the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Australia.

The commission was set up in 2000 by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, and Cardinal Edward Cassidy, then head of the VaticanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Council for Christian Unity. Its aim was to find a way of moving towards unity through Ã¢â‚¬Å“common life and missionÃ¢â‚¬Â.

The document leaked to The Times is the commissionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s first statement, Growing Together in Unity and Mission. The report acknowledges the Ã¢â‚¬Å“imperfect communionÃ¢â‚¬Â between the two churches but says that there is enough common ground to make its Ã¢â‚¬Å“call for actionÃ¢â‚¬Â about the Pope and other issues.

In one significant passage the report notes: Ã¢â‚¬Å“The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the ministry of the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] as universal primate is in accordance with ChristÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s will for the Church and an essential element of maintaining it in unity and truth.Ã¢â‚¬Â Anglicans rejected the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the 16th century. Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a reunited Church.

In another paragraph the report goes even further: Ã¢â‚¬Å“We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Other recommendations include inviting lay and ordained members of both denominations to attend each otherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences. Anglican bishops could be invited to accompany Catholic ones on visits to Rome.

The report adds that special Ã¢â‚¬Å“protocolsÃ¢â‚¬Â should also be drawn up to handle the movement of clergy from one Church to the other. Other proposals include common teaching resources for children in Sunday schools and attendance at each otherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s services, pilgrimages and processions.

Anglicans are also urged to begin praying for the Pope during the intercessionary prayers in church services, and Catholics are asked also to pray publicly for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Anglican Church, it is unlikely that a majority of parishioners would wish to heal the centuries-old rift and return to Rome.

However, the stance of the Archbishop of Canterbury over the present dispute dividing his Church gives an indication of how priorities could be changing in light of the gospel imperative towards church unity.

Dr Rowan Williams, who as Primate of the Church of England is its Ã¢â‚¬Å“focus for unityÃ¢â‚¬Â, has in the past supported a liberal interpretation of Scripture on the gay issue. But he has made it clear that church unity must come before provincial autonomy. A logical extension of that, once this crisis is overcome either by agreement or schism, would be to seek reunion with the Church of England's own mother Church.

I'm quite pleased with this, actually. I assume it will happen, and when it does, Charles can convert. Hehe.

Thats the main issue I see. The monarchy will lose all its power of church authority. We can only hope the Pope will be forced to make some concessions that shall make a reunion with the EO go more smoothly.

Truly, it is a historic time we live in!

-Will

Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."

I'm quite pleased with this, actually. I assume it will happen, and when it does, Charles can convert. Hehe.

Thats the main issue I see. The monarchy will lose all its power of church authority. We can only hope the Pope will be forced to make some concessions that shall make a reunion with the EO go more smoothly.

Truly, it is a historic time we live in!

-Will

This has been utterly overplayed by the Times. It's nothing more than the suggestion of an Anglican think tank and it would never wash. I even know High Church Anglicans who would refuse to be part of such a deal and you can bet your life the Low Church end wouldn't even countenance it. This has absolutely no chance of actually occuring, I'm certain. In fact, I doubt I've ever been more certain about the impossibility of a Times article being true ever before.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

This has been utterly overplayed by the Times. It's nothing more than the suggestion of an Anglican think tank and it would never wash. I even know High Church Anglicans who would refuse to be part of such a deal and you can bet your life the Low Church end wouldn't even countenance it. This has absolutely no chance of actually occuring, I'm certain. In fact, I doubt I've ever been more certain about the impossibility of a Times article being true ever before.

James

Ditto.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I'm quite pleased with this, actually. I assume it will happen, and when it does, Charles can convert. Hehe.

Ummm, may one ask which body you think Prince Charles could convert to? If EO, why?

Quote

Thats the main issue I see. The monarchy will lose all its power of church authority. We can only hope the Pope will be forced to make some concessions that shall make a reunion with the EO go more smoothly.

Which concessions do you see as ones that the Bishop of Rome would make? Married clergy is one that I can think of, but I'm interested in what others you might have in mind?

With Respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Ebor- I was hinting at his conversion to EO. Though I don't see it as CERTAIN, he has visited Mt. Athos many times. May just be a healthy interest, may be something more. As for concessions, he may have to lower his powers to meet their wishes. But I dunno, it's all speculation.

Ven- Protestantism cannot be looked at as a single entity. Considering that there are 500 million protestants, and 80 million of them are Anglican, thats almost 1/5, with the other 420 m to be divided amongst Jehovah Witnesses, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. I do realize that Lutherans are the largest, but Anglicans are still a large chunk. The faster we can break down the Protestant churches, the better. I'd rather have someone be a Catholic than a Jehovah Witness.

Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."

Ven- Protestantism cannot be looked at as a single entity. Considering that there are 500 million protestants, and 80 million of them are Anglican, thats almost 1/5, with the other 420 m to be divided amongst Jehovah Witnesses, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. I do realize that Lutherans are the largest, but Anglicans are still a large chunk. The faster we can break down the Protestant churches, the better. I'd rather have someone be a Catholic than a Jehovah Witness.

I'm well aware that Protestants are anything but monolithic, so I appreciate the condescension there. However, you're making my point for me. If the Anglican Communion rejoins the RCC, you haven't done anything that even approaches a united Western church. If you managed to merge all the mainlines into the RCC, you have an enlarged RCC that's still one of many Western churches. When the scene is that fragmented, you can't merge two or three groups and claim a unified entity.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

The truth is that this a revisit of an old meeting (5-6 years back) timed to coincide with the Tanzania meeting (which changed next to nothing). You can always find a group within Anglicanism which is willing to entertain some such union, and you can always find some group of Catholic scholars who are willing to go along. In the end it is for naught. On the Catholic side the authors are inevitably unrepresentative of the Official Line. On the Anglican side the problem is that since Anglicanism presupposes a lot of theological disagreement, an Anglican group which can countenance union is invariably a minority voice which is giving away points which other Anglicans do not concede.

Of the four main divisions on this, the Anglo-Catholics are the only group which can really countenance such a union without giving up something dear to them. The evangelicals, central/highs, and broads all have basic issues with not just Roman doctrines, but with Roman dogmatism. All anyone can really hope for is an Anglo-Catholic-style liturgy, and one thing that has held back a lot of converts is that the current way in which it is offered doesn't offer a lot of hope for its continuance.

Ebor- I was hinting at his conversion to EO. Though I don't see it as CERTAIN, he has visited Mt. Athos many times. May just be a healthy interest, may be something more.

Ah. Thank you. If the entire Anglican Communion were joined to the RC, I would guess that they would not drop their traditional worship, and I don't see how such a move would drive Prince Charles to become EO. Every so often there have been posts that His Highness has become something other then Anglican (I've seen it claimed for both EO and, of all things, muslim). It's read, I'm sorry, rather like he would be a "notch in their belt" or a "prize" to be won.

Quote

As for concessions, he may have to lower his powers to meet their wishes. But I dunno, it's all speculation.

Well, that's a question, what powers. This is all speculation, as you say. But I would suggest that married priests would be one point. And then there are all of the Anglican married Bishops...

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Every so often there have been posts that His Highness has become something other then Anglican (I've seen it claimed for both EO and, of all things, muslim). It's read, I'm sorry, rather like he would be a "notch in their belt" or a "prize" to be won.

And what a prize.... I'm not sure what the obsession is with HRH The Prince of Wales, but the desire to have him Orthodox tends to be nationalistic rather than spiritual. The House of Windsor has already given Orthodoxy some remarkable people, for example, St. Elizabeth the Grand Duchess and Martyr, as well as HRH Charles' Paternal Grandmother, Princess Alice (Princess Andrew), the niece of St. Elizabeth, who, like her Aunt, also became an Orthodox Nun. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush I say!

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I'm not sure what the obsession is with HRH The Prince of Wales, but the desire to have him Orthodox tends to be nationalistic rather than spiritual.

Yes, well, I've wondered about that. And with an air of "Look at who *we* have as our latest Poster Boy".

Quote

The House of Windsor has already given Orthodoxy some remarkable people, for example, St. Elizabeth the Grand Duchess and Martyr, as well as HRH Charles' Paternal Grandmother, Princess Alice (Princess Andrew), the niece of St. Elizabeth, who, like her Aunt, also became an Orthodox Nun. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush I say!

I know of those 2 ladies and their lives are most commendable.

Otoh, I'm going to play the pedant and say that St. Elizabeth was not from the House of Windsor since that name was not taken by the British Royal family until 1917. Her birth name was Princess Elisabeth Alexandra Luise Alice of Hesse and by Rhine and her mother was one of Queen Victoria's daughters.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Otoh, I'm going to play the pedant and say that St. Elizabeth was not from the House of Windsor since that name was not taken by the British Royal family until 1917.

And I'm going to equal your pedantry by stating that St. Elizabeth was martyred exactly one year to the day after King George V promulgated the Order-in-Council which changed the name of the British Royal House. So technically, St. Elizabeth was of the House of Windsor when she was martyred.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

As a additional bit of information that I just found out by poking around, St. Elizabeth is one of the 10 martyrs of the 20th Century portrayed in statuary over the west door of Westminster Abbey in England. Others there include St. Maximilian Kolbe - killed at AuschwitzManche Masemola- a young woman killed for wanting to be Christian from TransvaalJanani Luwum - Anglican Archbishop killed by Idi AminMartin Luther KingÃƒâ€œscar Romero - killed while at the altar in El SalvadorDietrich Bonhoeffer - hanged by the NazisEsther John - born Qamar Zia, converted to Christianity in Karachi, killed in 1960Lucian Tapiedi - From Papua New Guinea, killed in 1942Wang Zhiming - executed by the Chinese government in 1973, "rehabilitated" in 1980

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

And I'm going to equal your pedantry by stating that St. Elizabeth was martyred exactly one year to the day after King George V promulgated the Order-in-Council which changed the name of the British Royal House. So technically, St. Elizabeth was of the House of Windsor when she was martyred.

How about distantly related? After all, she was born into the house of Hesse and married into the House of Romanov. This has me wondering now, did marrying into a House take over from one(s) that one was born into. Then again, the Empress Alexandra was her sister and therefore another granddaughter of Queen Victoria.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Yes, well, I've wondered about that. And with an air of "Look at who *we* have as our latest Poster Boy".

Well, when it comes to native English speakers, you do have the Queen and the Royal family. We merely have Tom Hanks . . . so we've got to try . . .

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

As a additional bit of information that I just found out by poking around, St. Elizabeth is one of the 10 martyrs of the 20th Century portrayed in statuary over the west door of Westminster Abbey in England.

Here is a photo.St. Elizabeth is on the far left.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

This has me wondering now, did marrying into a House take over from one(s) that one was born into.

No. At the coronation of HM Elizabeth II, in accordance with tradition, the Royal Family was led in the Cathedral by it's oldest member who happened to be her Majesty's Mother-In-Law, Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark, who, by this stage had become an Orthodox Nun. Princess Andrew was born Princess Alice and was in fact St. Elizabeth's neice. She married into the Greek Royal Family, and later became an Orthodox Nun. At Her Majesty's coronation, she led the procession clothed in her habit (see below).Princess Andrew was a Windsor, and not because her son married a Windsor, but because she herself was the Great Grand-daughter of Queen Victoria.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 04:27:57 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I find any sort of en masse corporate conversion to be extremely unlikely. Anglicans crossing the Tiber will occur as it always has---at the invidual, family, or parish level.

Speaking of which, I attended my first Anglican Use mass on Ash Wednesday. It was wonderful---it was how the Novus Ordo should have been, firmly grounded in liturgical tradition. The congregation was a mix of former ECUSAers and "continuing Anglicans," along with some past and present Roman Catholics. It began in 1997 when the current pastor and 29 of his congregants left a local ECUSA parish. I'll surely be back for mass and evensong next Sunday.

Thank you for the picture and the information, OzGeorge. It's always good to learn something new.

It's interesting how things can vary. In Japan, when someone marries into the Imperial family they are not part of their original family/House at all and in the other direction, a princess marrying takes on the position and family of her husband.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I find any sort of en masse corporate conversion to be extremely unlikely. Anglicans crossing the Tiber will occur as it always has---at the invidual, family, or parish level.

And contrariwise there have been RCs who umm "swim the Channel"? I wonder what an equivalent is for "swimming the Tiber/Bosporus" going the other way... Just idle thoughts.

Quote

Speaking of which, I attended my first Anglican Use mass on Ash Wednesday. It was wonderful---it was how the Novus Ordo should have been, firmly grounded in liturgical tradition. The congregation was a mix of former ECUSAers and "continuing Anglicans," along with some past and present Roman Catholics. It began in 1997 when the current pastor and 29 of his congregants left a local ECUSA parish. I'll surely be back for mass and evensong next Sunday.

Ah the Anglican Use. And one of the questions is just how long it would be allowed to continue once the priest who went RC retires or passes on. There is, from what I've seen, no support for an Anglican section of the RC in the long run, similar to the Byzantine Catholic churches.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

There are not boatloads of Anglicans out there on deck waiting to become Catholic through individual conversion, and there is no "reunion" in the offing. My guess is in reality there's a trickle who might convert.

Lots of Anglicans these days are evangelicals, so there is certainly a profound theological issue that would prevent them from considering Roman Catholicism. In other cases there is an equally profound cultural divide that would keep Anglicans from becoming Roman Catholic, particularly among the very high church Anglo-Catholics. Most commonly I think the interflow is among the broad church type Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Catholic to Anglican and the other direction. It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t surprise me that the Anglican Use is based on the 79 BCP for instance, and will probably continue that way until the Anglican Use gets the kaibosch from the RC bishops in this country. The Episcopalians I know who are former Roman Catholics are not the dissenting, uber liberals we might assume (a la Matthew Fox). They are actually quite similar to the majority of lay Roman Catholics in this country in terms of their overall views, and they simply didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t feel bound by their cultural associations to stay in the church they were born in. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know of a single one who became an Ã¢â‚¬Å“Anglo CatholicÃ¢â‚¬Â however. They all go broad church.

I've seen in a number of places Catholics licking their chops about the flood they expect to come in. I hope they're not holding their breath in anticipation.

Probably because of stories like the one this thread started about, and just the general retinue of issues going on within Anglicanism. Just look around for former Episcopalians who are now Catholics discussing all of this.

The "flood" is of course never going to happen. For one thing, the Anglican crack-up, if it is ever even going to happen, is going agonzingly slowly. We've reached any number of crisis points so far and have still managed not to fall apart. People are being lost through attrition, and a lot of that attrition is now going into continuing churches and the AMiA. If there is some sort of major break, it will almost certainly produce an Anglican body for the "orthodox" to go to, so I can't see a flood from that either.

And the other side of the coin is that, in the USA anyway, RC church is just painfully uncongenial to the vast majority of Episcopalians. The vast majority are either old-fashioned central/high churchmen such as myself, or broad churchers who are going to end up inheriting the PECUSA kingdom anyway. The evangelicals are just as tied to Africa, so that leaves the centrals and the Anglo-Catholics as potential recruits. Well, a lot of the A-Cs may go, but since most of the continuing churches are A-C, they have a lot of options. The centrals don't. They are very much committed to a Lewisian type of theological process, which means that if they go Roman they get stuck in the whole cafeteria Catholicism thing; and they care about decent-and-in-order liturgy, which means that the local RC church is almost certainly ecclesiastical hell for them.

A-C laymen have something of the same issues, especially with the liturgy. A-C clerics, however, have huge incentives to switch, because they can almost certainly get re-priested, and then they can make a parish where they can suppress the liturgical crap. I definitely hear this in the internet chatter.

A-C clerics, however, have huge incentives to switch, because they can almost certainly get re-priested, and then they can make a parish where they can suppress the liturgical crap. I definitely hear this in the internet chatter.

That's somewhat dependent on the local RC bishop being supportive of them though isn't it?

I can think of any number of R.C. bishops who I would imagine would have no interest in having liturgically minded high churchmen in their midst. That I would think would be an obstacle, just as it is to the "Anglican Use".

I thought it was interesting that not that long ago here in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania a very high church priest, in a very Anglo-Catholic parish, was in a high profile power struggle with the local bishop. To my knowledge the priest was offered no support or encouragement by any of the local Catholic hierarchy (much less giving him an avenue to take whatever of his flock was willing in to the Roman Church).

The impression I get is that the vetting and re-ordination of PECUSA priests is being done on a national and not a diocesan level. As far as I know they are all being funneled through one bishop in New Jersey. So it's possible that opposition from the local ordinary is not an insurmountable stumbling block. But you are certainly right that lots of RC bishops in the USA would be utterly opposed to the values of A-C liturgical style.

Probably because of stories like the one this thread started about, and just the general retinue of issues going on within Anglicanism. Just look around for former Episcopalians who are now Catholics discussing all of this.

I've seen some of those sites then, I just haven't been there recently. Much of what I've seen in such places has been the former Anglicans going on about how wrong/misguided/deluded/mistaken etc Anglicans are and isn't it obvious that they should rush to be RC if they were really honest/thoughtful/faithful etc. That's in addition to the gloating and triumphalism when someone does RC. It's depressing.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I can think of any number of R.C. bishops who I would imagine would have no interest in having liturgically minded high churchmen in their midst. That I would think would be an obstacle, just as it is to the "Anglican Use".

I thought it was interesting that not that long ago here in the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania a very high church priest, in a very Anglo-Catholic parish, was in a high profile power struggle with the local bishop. To my knowledge the priest was offered no support or encouragement by any of the local Catholic hierarchy (much less giving him an avenue to take whatever of his flock was willing in to the Roman Church).

Ah, you're in the Philly area? I used to live there about 20 years ago. Was that the Good Shepherd, Rosemont case?

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I've seen some of those sites then, I just haven't been there recently. Much of what I've seen in such places has been the former Anglicans going on about how wrong/misguided/deluded/mistaken etc Anglicans are and isn't it obvious that they should rush to be RC if they were really honest/thoughtful/faithful etc. That's in addition to the gloating and triumphalism when someone does RC. It's depressing.

Depressing it is, and of course Orthodox people are not immune from doing such things.

The reality is the cabals of Novus Ordo Neocons (to steal a phrase) I think are rather few and small. The majority of R.C.'s would probably be mystified as to why Episcopalians would want to come over. Former ECUSAns would most likely find parishes filled with people with attitudes similar to them on most issues, but who have really bad liturgy.

Anyway, I seriously doubt the Anglican church will reunite with anything...that would be like being reabsorbed and us WASPs didnt spend all those centuries empire building and fighting the Pope to get reabsorbed by anyone.

To anyone free of wishful thinking it's clear that the most we could see would be some sort of concordat with the Methodists of the same ilk as that with the Lutherans. For the other Protestant bodies, the utter lack of an episcopacy is going to be a stopper, and the Anglicans are always going to be protestant enough to not be swallowed by a Catholic or Orthodox body. That has always been the real stopping point: these bodies cannot back down from denying that we are in any way a church, so all they can really negotiate is our surrender to them.

The way the Anglican wind seems to be blowing at the moment is that, after some amount of stalling, the American church (and then the Canadians after that) are going to get put out of the communion. The African churches, who are really running the show now, are very evangelical and aren't especially interested in ecumenical union. The American church may continue to make overtures, but given the circumstances of the divorce there will be no reason for anyone to respond to them. What's left would be the C of E, and given that at the moment they are being tied to the Africans and pressured (if not attacked) by the Blair government, there will probably continue to be highly academic efforts from there which will signify very little.

I must need some coffee to get my brain going, but I don't see how Prince Philip being decended from a line of Dane/Hessian/Russian/Windsor who were moved over to rule Greece for a while would affect things. I apologize for missing your point.

Quote

Anyway, I seriously doubt the Anglican church will reunite with anything...that would be like being reabsorbed and us WASPs didnt spend all those centuries empire building and fighting the Pope to get reabsorbed by anyone.

Reabsorbed and erased. That the good things in the Anglican Church (And there *are* good things, imho, and lots of them) are somehow to be jettisoned or that they're 'meaningless' if they're not from the True Way(tm) of whoever might be putting them down.

I'm sorry, Aurelia, I am not grumping at you. I'm just a bit down this morning and tired of too many potshots (not from you or this thread) about my Church. Fire up the coffee pot.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Oh yeah, didn't answer this. Yes, and we used to be members of an ECUSA parish here.

I belonged to two Episcopal parishes when I lived there, first St. Mary's, Hamilton Village (where I first became a Christian) and then for years up at St. Paul's Chestnut Hill (though I lived in Mt. Airy and then Andorra)

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

When I had my conversion experience---my point of no return as a Christian---several years ago, it was in one of those "continuing Anglican" churches---St. Andrew's, part of the Episcopal Missionary Church. I came extremely close to becoming confirmed in that church (the ECUSA, of course, was completely out of the question).

However, something stopped me. I felt uneasy about joining the alphabet soup that has spiraled out of control since the sixteenth century. Growing up in my father's Baptist churches, I yearned for an ecclesiology that more reflected the oneness and catholicity of the Church. Hitching myself to the latest tiny cleavages in Christendom just didn't seem right to me, but then I didn't grow up in Anglicanism and thus was not as closely attached to it.

I've found that many of these Anglican Users are those ex-Anglicans who, while valuing their heritage, did not see the point in adding to the alphabet soup. A good number of the local congregation here in Boston made stops in continuing Anglican churches on their way from the ECUSA to the Catholic Church. One man I know there was actually at the signing of the Affirmation of St. Louis back in the late 1970s (in the wake of female ordination).

The above comments, though, are true when they say the movement from the ECUSA to Catholicism will remain a trickle---most of the A-Cs have already left, and the evangelical-dominated remnant left in the mainline church could care less about reunion with Rome. I'm inclined to believe that Akinola and the other African bishops will in the future begin to not see much point in maintaining communion with Canterbury either.

It has links to another article describing Anglican ecclesiology as "parasitic".

It should be noted that the first article mentioned rejects Roman ecclesiology, and that the "parasitic" article was written by my old Tiber-crossing rector.

The crisis-of-the-day is that the election of Mark Laurence to be the next bishop of South Carolina has been rejected. Unfortunately for all, the circumstances of this are not clean. Each sitting bishop and each diocesan standing committee has to consent or reject, and if I recall correctly a simple majority of both is needed. It appears that a lot of standing committees didn't do anything, but the real sticking point appears to be that while a bare minimum of consents were apparently transmitted, some were not properly submitted and are being ruled invalid. Not surprisingly, a lot of people are upset. The general reason for rejecting Laurence is the perception that he is not committed to keeping his diocese in PECUSA no matter what. Now, there's noothing preventing the diocese from re-electing him putting everyone through the same process again. Rejections are extremely rare, and mostly have had to do with process irregularities which were then corrected. SOmehow I don't think it's going to be that way this time.

It should be noted that the first article mentioned rejects Roman ecclesiology, and that the "parasitic" article was written by my old Tiber-crossing rector.

To clarify, I posted it for Ebor as an example of the "I converted, you all need to convert now because you're not in a real church" phenomenon. I also thought it explained why there was not and would not be a flood of former Anglicans/Episcopalians who would convert. I also thought it was just interesting.

Quote

The crisis-of-the-day is that the election of Mark Laurence to be the next bishop of South Carolina has been rejected. Unfortunately for all, the circumstances of this are not clean. Each sitting bishop and each diocesan standing committee has to consent or reject, and if I recall correctly a simple majority of both is needed. It appears that a lot of standing committees didn't do anything, but the real sticking point appears to be that while a bare minimum of consents were apparently transmitted, some were not properly submitted and are being ruled invalid. Not surprisingly, a lot of people are upset. The general reason for rejecting Laurence is the perception that he is not committed to keeping his diocese in PECUSA no matter what. Now, there's noothing preventing the diocese from re-electing him putting everyone through the same process again. Rejections are extremely rare, and mostly have had to do with process irregularities which were then corrected. SOmehow I don't think it's going to be that way this time.

So a bishop who was lawfully elected to lead his diocese was just rejected because of a perception? Do I understand that correctly?

[I found a news article that says this

Quote

The Very Rev. Mark Lawrence needed at least 56 "yes" votes to be elected bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. He got 57.

But because some of those votes were electronically submitted, Presiding Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on Thursday invalidated the election. Canon law doesn't allow e-mail votes.

Yes. In the overwhelming majority of cases consents are routine; the general attitude is "far be it from us to argue with their choice." There have been several cases where consents failed due to perceived irregularities in the election process; in most if not all of those, the diocese went through the motions again and consents were obtained.

The most famous case of denied consents was that of James DeKoven, who was twice elected and twice failed to achieve the necessary consents. This was in the context of the "Ritualist" controversies, and as a defender of a more Catholic liturgy he was not liked by the anti-Roman set.

It has links to another article describing Anglican ecclesiology as "parasitic".

Thank you. I'd come across that as I read some of the Anglican and RC blogging. As Keble noted the "parasitic" article was written by a person who had been an Anglican priest for 25 years. I'm sorry if this sounds too grim or grouchy, but it's more of the 'slap down where I used to be to show that where I am now is Right' it seems to me.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Well, if you wanted to find some textbook examples of how to make a church unattractive to potential converts, I would say some of those comments in that blog would fit the bill. They seem really, really troubled by the idea that Anglicanism has any legitimacy.

Was the priest in question formerly of the Anglo-Papalist or Anglo-Catholic strain?

Well, if you wanted to find some textbook examples of how to make a church unattractive to potential converts, I would say some of those comments in that blog would fit the bill.

You noticed that, too, did you?

Quote

They seem really, really troubled by the idea that Anglicanism has any legitimacy.

They can't have Anglicanism having any legitimacy since they left that Church; they can't just go and leave her behind and move on. They say that the body they have chosen to move to is The One True Church(tm) so they must somehow put down where they were. There has, in the past, been some umm vigourous commenting in that when Al Kimel left the Anglicans he looked at both RC and EO and decided that RC was the way to go. But he thought that EO was OK too, that the "only" choices for were RC or EO and that both were equal.

Quote

Was the priest in question formerly of the Anglo-Papalist or Anglo-Catholic strain?

Not papalist that I know of and not pinned to the ceiling AC. He was big on Cursillo and evangelicalism strains for a while. One thing was that he was a proponent of decently and in order liturgy.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Ooiyyh. Intellectual converts looking for the true church. Count me out of that one.

Quote

Not papalist that I know of and not pinned to the ceiling AC.

Actual Anglo-Papalists in this country I think are fairly rare. Nose bleed altitude churchmen are more common, but mostly restricted to their urban fortresses (with of course their congregational polity, the ultimate irony ).

I was a nose bleeder, but in a broad to slightly affirming aff-kaffish type parish. What actually got to me were two issues.

One that I perceived the leadership of the church to be a bunch of jerks (apologies if you have a different perspective)Two, the agreements with the Methodists and Lutherans. This point really troubled me.

For me, this wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a big deal per se ultimately. I had no practicing church background (although some family associations that made the ECUSA familiar) and had looked at Orthodoxy and Anglicanism beginning at the same time. So I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really feel like I was invested in anything, leaving anything behind, and I was just as comfortable in the DL.

It seems to me ECUSAers who take catholicity seriously have some tough choices now.

Stay put Ã¢â‚¬â€œ ignore the craziness and some problematic ecclesiology issues and hope for the best.The Continuum Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Kind of a sectarian existence.Full bore Byzantine Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Good liturgy, but not yours.WR Orthodoxy Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Tepid support from the hierarchs, issues of continuity, no hierarchy of ones own. Limited availability.Novus Ordo RCC Ã¢â‚¬â€œ No explanation needed.Anglican Use RCC Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Same issues as WRO with a crappy version of the prayer book.

This has me wondering now, did marrying into a House take over from one(s) that one was born into.

No. At the coronation of HM Elizabeth II, in accordance with tradition, the Royal Family was led in the Cathedral by it's oldest member who happened to be her Majesty's Mother-In-Law, Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark, who, by this stage had become an Orthodox Nun. Princess Andrew was born Princess Alice and was in fact St. Elizabeth's neice. She married into the Greek Royal Family, and later became an Orthodox Nun. At Her Majesty's coronation, she led the procession clothed in her habit (see below).Princess Andrew was a Windsor, and not because her son married a Windsor, but because she herself was the Great Grand-daughter of Queen Victoria.

Cool picture. Technical correction: Westminster Abbey is not a Cathedral.